THE MONARCHY MOVEMENT IS OPPOSED
THE APPEAL OF THE SCHOLAR LIANG CH'I-CHAO
We have already referred in several places to the extraordinary rôle
scholarship and the literary appeal play in the governance of China. It
is necessary to go back to the times of the birth of the Roman Empire,
and to invoke the great figure of Cicero, to understand how greatly the
voice of men of recognized intellectual qualities influences the nation.
Liang Ch'i-chao, a man of some forty-five years, had long been
distinguished for his literary attainments and for the skill with which,
though unversed in any Western language, he had expounded the European
theory and practice of government to his fellow-countrymen. To his brain
is due the coining of many exact expressions necessary for parliamentary
government, his mentality having grown with the modern growth of China
and adapted itself rather marvellously to the requirements of the
Twentieth Century. A reformer of 1898--that is one of the small devoted
band of men who under Kang Yu Wei almost succeeded in winning over the
ill-fated Emperor Kwang Hsu to carrying out a policy of modernizing the
country in the teeth of fierce mandarin opposition, he possessed in his
armoury every possible argument against the usurpation Yuan Shih-kai
proposed to practise. He knew precisely where to strike--and with what
strength; and he delivered himself over to his task with whole-hearted
fervour. It having become known that he was engaged in preparing this
brief for the people of China, every influence was brought to bear to
prevent such a disastrous publication. Influential deputations were sent
to him to implore him to remember the parlous international situation
China found herself in,--a situation which would result in open
disaster if subjected to the strain of further discords. For a time he
hesitated launching his counter-stroke. But at length the Republican
Party persuaded him to deal the tyrant the needed blow; and his now
famous accusation of the Chief Executive was published.
Its effect was immediate and very far-reaching. Men understood that
armed revolt was in the air. The almost Biblical fervour which pervades
this extraordinary document shows an unusual sense of moral outrage. The
masterly analysis of the Diaz régime in Mexico coupled with the manner
in which--always pretending to be examining the conduct of the
Mexican--he stabs at Yuan Shih-kai, won the applause of a race that
delights in oblique attacks and was ample proof that great trouble was
brewing. The document was read in every part of China and everywhere
approved. Although it suffers from translation, the text remains
singularly interesting as a disclosure of the Chinese mentality; whilst
the exhaustive examination of political terms it contains shows that
some day Chinese will carry their inventive genius into fields they have
hitherto never openly invaded. Especially interesting is it to contrast
the arguments of such a man with those of a decadent such as Yang Tu.
FROM REPUBLIC TO MONARCHY
Before I proceed with my argument I wish to make plain two points.
One is that I am not one of those reformers whose ears are their
brains, and who are intoxicated with the doctrine of republicanism.
I have, therefore, no partiality for the republican form of
government nor any bias for or against other forms of government.
This can be proved by my literary work during the last ten years.
The second point is that I am not one of the veteran conservatives
who lay so much stress on the importance of having a dynasty. For
such are the thoughts of men who only seek to adjust themselves to
existing conditions. If one wishes to consider the present situation
of the country without bias or prejudice he must disregard the rise
or fall of any particular family. Only those who bear in mind these
two points can read my argument with real understanding.
I. THE QUESTION OF KUO-TI
Some time ago I said that, as political students, we should only
care for _Cheng-ti_, _i.e._, the form of government and not for
_Kuo-ti_, _i.e._, the form of state. Do not call this trifling with
words, for it is a principle which all critics of politics should
follow and never depart from. The reason is that critics of politics
should not, because they cannot, influence the question of _Kuo-ti_.
They should not influence the question of _Kuo-ti_ because so long
as the question of _Kuo-ti_ remains unsettled the major portion of
the administration remains at a stand-still. Thus there will be no
political situation properly so called and there will be no
political questions to discuss (here the term political means really
administrative). If a critic of politics, therefore, interfere with
the question of _Kuo-ti_, he will be leading the nation into a
condition of political instability, thus undermining the ground on
which the people stand. Such critics can be likened unto a man
trying to enter a house without ascending the steps or crossing a
river without a boat.
They cannot influence the question of _Kuo-ti_. The force which
drives and steers the change of one form of State or _vice versa_ is
generally not derived from mere politics. If the time is not ripe,
then no amount of advocacy on the part of critics can hasten it. If
the time is ripe, nothing the critics say can prevent it. He who
indulges himself in the discussion of the problem of
_Kuo-ti_--_i.e._, the form of States, as a political student, is
ignorant of his own limitations and capacity. This is as true of the
active politicians as of the critics; for the first duty of an
active politician is to seek for the improvement and progress of the
administration of the existing foundation of government. A step
beyond this line is revolution and intrigue, and such cannot be the
attitude of a right-minded active politician or statesman. This is
looking at it from the negative side.
From the positive, that is, the progressive point of view, there is
also a boundary. Such actions under one form of government are
political activities, and under the opposite form of government are
also political activities. But these are not questions of political
principle. For only when a man sacrifices the ideals which he has
advocated and cherished during the whole of his life does the
question of principle arise. Therefore the great principle of
looking to the actual state of administration of the form of
government and leaving the mere form of state in the background is a
principle that is applicable under all circumstances and should be
followed by all critics of politics.
II. THE ARGUMENT AGAINST CHANGE
No form of government is ideal. Its reason of existence can only be
judged by what it has achieved. It is the height of folly to rely on
theoretical conclusions as a basis for artificial arbitration as to
what should be accepted and what discarded. Mere folly, however, is
not to be seriously condemned. But the danger and harm to the
country will be unmeasurable if a person has prejudiced views
respecting a certain form of government and in order to prove the
correctness of his prejudiced views, creates artificially a
situation all by himself. For this reason my view has always been
not to oppose any form of government. But I am always opposed to
any one who engages in a propaganda in favour of a form of
government other than the one under which we actually live. In the
past I opposed those who tried to spread the republican form of
government while the country was under monarchical government, and
the arguments I advanced in support of my views were written in no
fewer than 200,000 words. Even so late as the ninth month after the
outbreak of the Revolution I issued a pamphlet entitled "The Problem
of the Building of the New China," which was my last attempt to
express my views respecting the maintenance of the old form of
government.
What obligations had I to the then Imperial House? Did it not heap
persecution and humiliation on me to the utmost of its power and
resources? I would have been an exile even to this day had it not
been for the Revolution. Further, I was no child and I was fully
aware of the disappointment which the then Government caused in the
minds of the people. Yet I risked the opposition of the whole
country and attempted to prolong the life of the dying dynasty. I
had no other view in mind except that there would be some
possibility of our hope being realized if the whole nation would
unite in efforts to improve the administration under the then
existing form of government. I believed that because the people were
not educated for a change. But if the status of the country should
be changed before the people are educated and accustomed to the new
order of things, the danger and hardship during the transitional
period of several years would be incalculable. In certain
circumstances this might lead to the destruction of the nation. Even
if we are spared the tragedy of national extinction, the losses
sustained by the retarding of the progress of the administration
would be unredeemable. It is painful to recall past experiences; but
if my readers will read once more my articles in the _Hsin Min Tung
Pao_ during the years 1905 and 1906 they will see that all the
sufferings which the Republic has experienced bear out the
predictions made then. The different stages of the sinister
development have been unfolding themselves one by one just as I said
they would. It was unfortunate that my words were not heeded
although I wept and pleaded. Such has been the consequence of the
change of the state of the country--a change of _Kuo-ti_.
Yet before we have hardly ceased panting, this talk of a second
change is on us. I am not in a position to say exactly how this talk
had its beginning. Ostensibly it was started by the remarks of Dr.
Goodnow. But I am unable to say whether Dr. Goodnow actually gave
out such a view or for what purpose he expressed such a view. From
what he told the representative of a Peking newspaper he never
expressed the views attributed to him. Be this as it may, I cannot
help having my doubts. All Dr. Goodnow is alleged to have said
bearing on the merits of the monarchical and republican system of
government as an abstract subject of discussion, such as the
necessity of the form of state (_Kuo-ti_) being suited to the
general conditions of the country and the lessons we should learn
from the Central and South American republics, are really points of
a very simple nature and easily deduced. How strange that among all
this large number of politicians and scholars, who are as numerous
as the trees in the forest and the perch in the stream, should have
failed for all these years to notice these simple points; and now
suddenly make a fetish of them because they have come out of the
mouth of a foreigner. Is it because no one except a foreign doctor
can discover such facts? Why even a humble learner like myself,
though not so learned even to the extent of one ten-thousandth part
of his knowledge, more than ten years ago anticipated what the good
doctor has said; and I said much more and in much more comprehensive
terms. I have no desire to talk about my work, but let my readers
glance through the copies of the _Hsin Min Tsung Pao, Yin Ping Shih
Wen Chi_, the "Fight between Constitutional Advocates" and
"Revolutionary Advocates," the "Question of the Building of the New
China," etc., etc. My regret is that my eyes are not blue and my
hair not brown, and hence my words were not acceptable to the
nation!
III. RES JUDICATA
I do not say that the merits or otherwise of the republican system
should not be discussed, but the time for such a discussion has
passed. The most opportune time for such a discussion was in 1911
when the Revolution had just begun; but since then further
discussions should not be tolerated. There might have been some
excuse if this subject had been brought up for discussion when the
second revolution broke out at Hukow on the Yangtsze river or before
the President was formally inaugurated, or before the Powers
formally recognized the Republic; but the excuse even then would
have been a weak one. Where were you then, advocates of monarchy?
Could you not at that time have brought out an essay by one of the
great scholars of the world as a subject for discussion? Could you
not have cited the cases of American republics as a warning for us
that these republics were by no means peaceful? Yet at that time
when the heroes of discretion were daily pushing the progress of the
republican cause, stating that republicanism was the panacea for all
the world's administrations and that republicanism was not a new
factor in Chinese history, a humble and ignorant man like myself,
then a stranger in a foreign land, was burdened with the fear of the
unsuitability of the republican system to China and wrote articles
in support of his own views and wept till his eyes were dry.
Do you not realize that the State is a thing of great importance and
should not be disturbed carelessly? How can you then experiment with
it and treat it as if you were putting a chest into a dead hole,
saying "Let me place it here for the moment and I will see to it
later." The status of the State can be likened to marriage between
man and woman. The greatest care should be taken during courtship.
The lady should then exercise care to see that the man whom she is
taking to be a life companion is worthy of her. During this period
it is the duty of her relatives and friends to point out to her any
danger or misunderstanding even to the extent of offending her
feelings. But if you leave her alone at this stage when there is
plenty of time to change her course, and--what is more--urge her to
tie the knot despite incompatibility, what right have you afterwards
to make the impudent suggestion to the wife that her husband is not
a man to whom she should cling for life? Is such a course a
charitable way of doing things?
If indeed the republican cause is enough to cause the destruction of
the nation then you, the advocates of monarchy, have placed the
country in a position from which she has no hope of ever coming out
independent. You are the men who--to the best of your
ability--inculcated and pressed the adoption of the republican
cause. The proverb says, "If now, why not then?" How many days can a
person live that you, not satisfied with one great sin, are again to
commit another. It is not long since the Republic was first
established; yet you, the veterans of republicanism, are the leaders
to-day in advocating the overthrow of the Republic. Yes. It is
indeed strange that I, a man who once opposed the republican cause,
should now be opposing you. Nothing is stranger and nothing is so
fateful.
But our modern critics say we prefer a constitutional monarchy to an
autocratic republic. Now whether we are constitutional or not is a
question concerning the administration, while the question whether
we are republican or not is a question concerning the form or status
of the country. We have always held that the question of _Kuo-ti_ is
above discussion and that what we should consider is the actual
condition of administration. If the administration (government) is
constitutional, then it matters not whether the country is a
Republic or a Monarchy. If the government is not constitutional then
neither a republic nor a monarchy will avail. There is no connexion,
therefore, between the question of _Kuo-ti_ and the question of
_Cheng-ti_. It is an absurd idea to say that in order to improve the
administration we must change the _Kuo-ti_--the status or form of
the country--as a necessity. If this idea is to be entertained for a
single moment the changes even in constitutional countries will be
endless. But the curious paradox is that in former days the critics
said that only a republic, not a monarchy, could be constitutional;
whereas, the critics now say that a monarchy, not a republic, can
alone be constitutional!
IV. THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONSTITUTION
Let me therefore lay down a simple definition of what a Constitution
is before discussing whether the contentions of the critics are
reasonable. My opponents will agree with me that the main principle
of a constitutional government is that the legislative organ should
always balance the executive and that the exercising of the
administrative power is always limited to a certain extent. They
will also agree that the most important point of a so-called
constitutional monarchy is that the monarch should act as a
figurehead, and that the establishment of a responsible cabinet is
an indispensable accompaniment. If these simple principles are
recognized then we must put up the theory for discussion. Let us
then raise the question who shall be the monarch. In plain words, is
the person in our mind the President? or any other person? (In view
of the repeated declarations of the President that he will never
consent to become an Emperor, this suggestion on my part is a gross
insult to his character, but I crave to excuse myself as this is
only mere speculation and supposition.) What shall we do with the
President if we find another man? The President, having so long
borne the burdens of the State, will certainly be only too willing
to vacate his post to live in retirement as far as his own person is
concerned, but can we imagine that the country will allow the
President to retire? If not, then are we going to ask the President
to form a responsible cabinet under a figurehead monarch? Even if we
take it for granted that the President, out of love for the country,
would be willing to sacrifice his own principles and yield to the
wish of the country, it will be dangerous indeed if he--a person on
whom the whole nation depends--is placed in the path of parliament.
Therefore the contention that a constitutional monarchy will be
attained if a person other than the President be made a monarch is
false and baseless.
Shall we then make the present President a monarch? Of course the
President will not consent to this. But leaving this aside let us
suppose that the President, in consideration of the permanent
welfare of the country, is willing to sacrifice everything to
satisfy the wish of the people, do we expect that he will become a
mere figurehead? A figurehead monarch is, to adapt the saying of the
west, a fat porker, a guinea-pig, that is, good as an expensive
ornament. Will it be wise to place so valuable a personage in so
idle a position at a time when the situation is so extremely
critical?
Even if we are willing to suffer the President to become a
figurehead it will remain a question whether a responsible cabinet
can ever be formed. I do not say that the President will not allow a
responsible cabinet to exist under him. My contention is that there
is no one, within my knowledge, who commands respect enough and is
capable of taking over the responsibilities of President Yuan. For
who can replace the Great President in coping with our numerous
difficulties? If we select an ordinary man and make him bear the
great burdens, we will find that in addition to his lack of ability
rendering him unequal to the occasion, his lack of dominating
influence will disqualify him from exercising authority. It was for
the purpose of meeting the requirements of the existing conditions
that the Cabinet system was changed into a Presidential system--an
excellent substitution for a weakened administration. Conditions in
the next two or three years will not be very much different from
what they are now. Therefore, the contention that the administration
will be changed overnight for the better after a change in the form
of the State is, if not a wicked untruth to deceive the common
people, the ridiculous absurdity of a bookworm. Thus the theory that
a constitutional monarchy will immediately follow, if the President
consents to become a monarch, is also fallacious.
Can it be possible that those who are now holding up the
constitutional principle as a shield for their monarchical views
have a different definition for the term "constitution"? The Ching
(Manchu) Dynasty considered itself as possessing a constitution in
its last days. Did we recognize it as such? Let me also ask the
critics what guarantee they have to offer that the constitution will
be put into effect without hindrance as soon as the form of State is
changed. If they cannot give any definite guarantee, then what they
advocate is merely an absolute monarchy and not a constitutional
monarchy. As it is not likely to be a constitutional monarchy, we
may safely assume that it will be an imperial autocracy. I cannot
regard it as a wise plan if, owing to dislike of its defects, the
Republic should be transformed into an Imperial autocracy. Owing to
various unavoidable reasons, it is excusable in spite of violent
opposition to adopt temporarily autocratic methods in a republican
country. But if the plan proposed by present-day critics be put into
effect, that on the promise of a constitution we should agree to the
adoption of a monarchy, then the promise must be definitely made to
the country at the time of transition that a constitutional
government will become an actuality. But if, after the promise is
made, existing conditions are alleged to justify the continuance of
autocratic methods, I am afraid the whole country will not be so
tolerant towards the Chief Executive. To assume outwardly the rôle
of constitutional government, but in reality to rule in an
unconstitutional manner, was the cause of the downfall of the Ching
Dynasty. The object lesson is not obscure. Let us take warning by
it.
V. FALLACIES OF THE MONARCHISTS
If, on the other hand, the present-day critics are really in earnest
for a constitution, then I am unable to understand why they believe
that this cannot be secured under the Republic but must be obtained
in a roundabout way by means of a monarchy. In my view the real
hindrances to the adoption of a constitution at the present day in
China are the existing conditions, viz. the attitude of the
officials and the traditions and intellectual standards of the
people. But these hindrances have not resulted from the adoption of
republicanism. Therefore they cannot be expected to disappear with
the disappearance of the Republic. For instance, from the President
downward to the minor official of every official organ in the
capital or in the provinces, every one inclines to be independent of
the law, and considers it convenient to deal with affairs as he
pleases. This is the greatest obstacle to constitutional government.
Now has that anything to do with the change or not of the form of
State? Again, the absence, on the part of the people, of interest in
political affairs, of knowledge of politics, of political morality
and strength, and their inability to organize proper political
parties to make use of an inviolable parliament, are also hindrances
to the attainment of a constitution. Now what have these things to
do with a change in the form of the States? If I were to go on
naming such hindrances one by one, I should count my fingers many
times over and I should not be through. Yet it is quite plain that
not a single one of these hindrances can be attributed to
republicanism.
To say that what we cannot get under the republic can be secured
immediately upon accepting a monarchical régime, or to say that
what can be secured under a monarchical régime can never be secured
in a republican period is beyond the understanding of a stupid man
like myself, although I have searched my brain for a valid reason.
My view is that if China is really in earnest for a constitution,
the President should set the example himself by treating the
Constitutional Compact as sacredly inviolable and compel his
subordinates to do the same. Every letter of the compact should be
carried out and no attempt should be made to step beyond its limits.
Meantime give the people as many opportunities as possible to
acquaint themselves with political affairs, and do not stifle the
aspirations of the people or weaken their strength or damp their
interest or crush their self-respect. Then within a few years we
shall be rewarded with results. If, instead of doing all these
things, we vainly blame the form of State, we are, as Chu Tse says,
like a boat that blames the creek for its curves.
The most powerful argument of those who advocate a change to a
monarchy is that there is every possibility of disturbance at the
time of a Presidential election. This is a real danger. It is for
this reason that ten years ago I did not dare to associate myself
with the advocates of republicanism. If the critics want to attack
me on this point to support of their contentions, I advise them not
to write another article but to reprint my articles written some
time ago, which, I think, will be more effective. Fortunately,
however, we have discovered a comparatively effective remedy. For,
according to the latest President Election Law, the term of the
President is to all intents and purposes a term for life. It is
therefore impossible for such dangers to appear during the life of
the President. What concerns us is therefore what will happen after
the departure of the present President for another world. This, of
course, is a question that we do not wish to touch upon; but since
every one, even the patriarchs, must die some day, let us face the
matter openly. If Heaven blesses China and allows the Great
President to devote himself to the country for ten or more
years--during which he will be able to assert the authority of the
government, cleanse officialdom, store-up strength, consolidate the
country, and banish all hidden dangers--then there will be nothing
to choose between a republic or a monarchy. If, on the other hand,
Heaven should not be pleased so to favour us and takes away our
Great President before he is half through with his great task, then
the fate of China is sealed. No changes in the form of State will
avail under any circumstances. Therefore the question whether China
will be left in peace or not depends entirely on the length of years
the Great President will live and what he will be able to accomplish
in his lifetime. Whether the country is ruled as a republic or a
monarchy, the consequences will be the same.
Do you still doubt my words? Let me go deeper into the analysis. The
difference between a republic and a monarchy lies only in the
methods of succession of the head of the nation. It is evident that
although a certain law of succession may be made during the lifetime
of the Head, it cannot take effect until his death; and whether or
not the effect thus intended will come up to expectations will
depend on two factors: (1) whether or not the merits and personal
influence of the predecessor will continue effective after his
death, and (2) whether or not there will be unscrupulous and
insubordinate claimants at the death of the Head, and, if any, the
number of such men and whether the point of dispute they raise be
well-founded. If these are taken as the basis for discerning the
future we will arrive at the same conclusion whether the country be
a republic or a monarchy.
VI. THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION LAW
The Presidential Election Law, however, provides that the successor
should be nominated by his predecessor, and the name of the
successor so nominated is to be locked in the golden box in the
stone strong-room. The President may now, on the one hand, multiply
his merits and strengthen his personal influence so that the whole
country will gladly bow to his wishes to the extent that even after
his death they will not want to disobey his last wish, and on the
other hand, the President may quietly ascertain the likely causes
which would produce dissension, and take suitable steps to prevent
and be rid of them. If the seed of dissension is in the ordinances,
then alter the ordinances so that they may not be used as a tool by
possible claimants. If the seed of dissension is in a person then
cultivate that man, lead him to righteousness, place him in a
suitable position so that he may be protected from temptation.
Meanwhile let the President carefully select his successor on whom
he may eventually lay the responsibilities of State (according to
the Presidential Election Law the President is at liberty to suggest
any one he likes, his own son or some one else). Let the nominee be
placed in a responsible position so as to bring him to public
notice. Give him real authority so that he may establish his
influence. Place his name at the head of other men of little
consequence in the golden box. Then there will be absolutely no
ground for dispute when the time comes to open the box.
If every President will do likewise this system can be used without
fear of a break for hundreds of years. Otherwise we will have only
the Imperial system on paper to rely on for assistance, which is not
even to be thought of. A glance through the pages of Chinese history
will show the numerous cases in the reign of Emperors when princes
fought in the very confines of the Emperor's palace while the corpse
of their royal father lay unburied in the hall. Thus it is seen that
the hidden cause of the safety or otherwise of the country does not
lie with the mere formality of a constitution either in a republic
or a monarchy.
VII. THE CASE OF DIAZ, THE DICTATOR
The critics bring up the example of Mexico where live rivals have
been struggling with each other for the presidency, and the internal
confusion of the Central and South American republics as well as
Portugal, as an unquestionable proof of their contention that a
republic is not so good as a monarchy. I imagine that the idea of
these critics is that all these disturbances can be avoided if all
these republics were changed into monarchies. Let me tell them that
Diaz ruled over Mexico for thirty years, and only died as an exile
in May last (I am not quite sure of the exact month). If indeed the
struggle in Mexico was a fight for succession then the fight should
not have begun until this year. And indeed if it were necessary to
have a monarch to avoid the disturbance, and supposing that Diaz,
thirty years ago, had a man like Dr. Goodnow to make the suggestion,
and men like the Chou An Hui to spread it, and suppose that Diaz
boldly took the advice and set up an Imperial system for himself,
would Mexico then have a peace that would last as long as the ages?
If Diaz had assumed the throne I am positive he would long ago have
been an exile in a foreign country before his imperial system could
have come into effect or he himself become the proud founder of a
new dynasty. What he would have held as an imperial charter would
have become a mere scrap of paper. If he could not prevent rebellion
even during his lifetime how can we expect an empty Imperial system
to prevent it after his death. Even a child can see this. The
disturbances in Mexico were unavoidable no matter under a republic
or a monarchy. The reason? It is because Diaz, under the mask of a
republic, actually played the rôle of a despot. During all the
thirty years he held office he never devoted himself to the
strengthening of the fundamental things of State, but diligently
strengthened his own position. He massed an enormous number of
troops for his own protection so that he might overawe the people.
For fear that the troops might become arrogant and insubordinate, he
provoked disagreement among them in order that he might play them
round his fingers. He banished all those who opposed him, relying on
force alone. In dealing with those who were really patriotic, he
either corrupted their character by buying them with silver or
removed them by assassination. He was a vainglorious man and spent
money like water. From the foreign capitalists he borrowed in a most
indiscriminate manner, while on the Mexican people he levied all
sorts of cruel taxes. Thus the strength of the people was drained
and the resources of the country were exhausted, creating a position
over which he eventually had no control whatever. Ten years ago I
wrote an article in the _Hsin Min Tsung Pao_ remarking that Diaz was
a matchless fraud. I said then that a nation-wide calamity would
befall Mexico after his death and that the Mexican nation would be
reduced to a mere shadow. (My friend Mr. Tang Chio-tun also wrote an
article, before the internal strife in Mexico broke out, on the same
subject and in an even more comprehensive way.) Luckily for Diaz he
ruled under the mask of republicanism, for only by so doing did he
manage to usurp and keep the presidential chair for thirty years. He
would long ago have disappeared had he attempted to assume the rôle
of an emperor. This is also true of the other republics of Central
and South America. Their presidents almost without a single
exception used military force as a stepping-stone to the
presidential chair. We have yet to see the last military aspirant.
The unsuitability of the country to the republican system is of
course one of the reasons but I cannot agree with those who say that
this is the only reason.
As to Portugal it is true that the change from the monarchy to
republic has not stopped internal disturbance; but is it not a fact
that Portugal became a republic as a result of internal disturbance
and was it not during the existence of the monarch that the
disturbance started? It is ridiculous to suppose that a republic
will surely court disturbance while a monarchy will surely ensure
peace and order. Is not Persia a monarchy? Is not Turkey a monarchy?
Is not Russia a monarchy?
Read their history in recent decades and see how many years of peace
they have had. There have been no election of presidents in these
countries. Why then such unrest?
Again, why was the state of affairs during the Sixteen States of the
Five Dynasty-Period and the Ten States of the Five Successions as
deplorably miserable and disastrous as the state of affairs now
prevailing in Mexico, although there was no election of Presidents
then? In quoting objective facts as illustrations the critic should
not allow his choice to be dictated by his personal like or dislike.
Otherwise he will not be deceiving others than himself. Soberly
speaking, any form of state is capable of either ensuring a
successful government or causing rebellion. And nine cases out of
ten the cause of rebellion lies in the conditions of the
administration and not in the form of state. It cannot be denied,
however, that the chances of rebellion and dissension are more
frequent and easier when the form of state does not suit the
conditions of the people. That is why I did not advocate
republicanism; and even now I am not a blind believer in
republicanism. In this I agree with you, the Chou An Hui people.
The reason why I have not decided to advocate boldly a change in the
form of state is because for years my heart has been burdened with
an unspeakable sorrow and pain, believing that ever since the
mistake made in 1911 the hope for China's future has dwindled to
almost nothing. On one hand I have been troubled with our inability
to make the Republic a success, and on the other I have been
worrying over the fact that it would be impossible to restore the
monarchy. The situation has so worked on my troubled mind that at
times I seemed to be beside myself. But as the whole country seemed
to be already in a state of desperation I have come to the
conclusion that it would not do any good to add pain to sorrow.
Therefore, instead of uttering pessimistic views I have been
speaking words of encouragement to raise our spirits. In this,
however, I have exhausted my own strength. My friend, Mr. Hsu Fo-su,
told me some five or six years ago that it was impossible for China
to escape a revolution, and as a result of the revolution could not
escape from becoming a republic, and by becoming a republic China
would be bound to disappear as a nation. I have been meditating on
these words of ill-omen and sought to help the country to escape
from his prediction but I have not yet found the way.
VIII. "DIVINITY DOTH HEDGE A KING"
Now my friends, you have stated in a worthy manner the reasons why
the republican form of state cannot assist China to maintain her
existence; now let me state why it is impossible to restore the
monarchical system. The maintenance of the dignity of a monarch
depends on a sort of mystical, historical, traditional influence or
belief. Such an influence was capable of producing unconsciously and
spontaneously a kind of effect to assist directly or indirectly in
maintaining order and imparting blessing to the country. In this
lies the value of a monarchy. But dignity is a thing not to be
trifled with. Once it is trodden down it can never rise again. We
carve wood or mould clay into the image of a person and call it a
god (idol). Place it in a beautiful temple, and seat it in a
glorious shrine and the people will worship it and find it
miraculously potent. But suppose some insane person should pull it
down, tread it under foot and throw it into a dirty pond and suppose
some one should discover it and carry it back to its original sacred
abode, you will find the charm has gone from it. Ever since the days
of monarchical government the people have looked on the monarch with
a sort of divine reverence, and never dared to question or criticize
his position. After a period of republicanism, however, this
attitude on the part of the common people has been abruptly
terminated with no possibility of resurrection. A survey of all the
republics of the world will tell us that although a large number of
them suffered under republican rule, not a single one succeeded in
shaking itself free of the republican fetters. Among the world
republics only France has had her monarchical system revived twice
after the republic was first inaugurated. The monarchy, however,
disappeared almost immediately. Thus we may well understand how
difficult it is for a country to return to its monarchical state
after a republican régime. It may be said that China has had only a
short experience of the republican régime; but it must also be
remembered that the situation has been developing for more than ten
years and in actual existence for about four years. During the
period of development the revolutionists denounced the monarch in
most extravagant terms and compared him to the devil. Their aim was
to kill the mystic belief of the people in the Emperor; for only by
diminishing the dignity of the monarch could the revolutionary cause
make headway. And during and after the change all the official
documents, school text-books, press views and social gossip have
always coupled the word monarch with reprobation. Thus for a long
while this glorious image has been lying in the dirty pond! Leaving
out the question that it is difficult to restore the monarchy at the
present day, let us suppose that by arbitrary method we do succeed
in restoring it. You will then find that it will be impossible for
it to regain in former dignity and influence.
Turning to another aspect, the most natural course would seem to be
a revival of the last dynasty. It might have been possible for a
Charles II and Louis XVIII of China to appear again, if not for the
hatred of racial domination. But since the last dynasty was Manchu
this is out of the question. If a new dynasty were set up it would
require many years of hard labour and a great deal of organizing to
succeed. Even then only a few have succeeded in this way in
prolonging their dynasties by actually convincing the people of
their merits. Therefore for several years I have been saying to
myself that it would be easier to strengthen the country and place
it on a sounder basis if it were possible for us to return to our
monarchical state. And to revive the monarchical government there
are two ways.
One is that after thoroughly reforming the internal administration
under the leadership of the present Great President, that is, when
all the neglected affairs of the country have been well attended to,
every family in the land made happy and prosperous, the army
well-trained and all the necessary bitterness "eaten," the
President, when a suitable opportunity presented itself, should have
the rare fortune to gain a decisive victory over a foreign foe; then
his achievements would be such that the millions of people would
compel him to ascend the throne, and so he would hand his sceptre on
to his descendants for endless ages.
The second possibility is that after a second great internal
disturbance, resulting in the whole country being thrown into a
state of utter confusion and cut up into small independent states,
the President should suppress them and unite the country into one
empire. We will, of course, not pray for the second possibility to
come about as then there will be little left of the Chinese people.
And no one can be certain whether the person who shall succeed in
suppressing the internal strife will be a man of our own race or
not. Thus the result will not differ very much from national
extinction. As to the first possibility, we know that an exceedingly
capable man is now in a most powerful position; let him be given
time and he will soon show himself to be a man of success. Does not
the last ray of hope for China depend on this?
IX. THE UNRIPE PEAR
This is why I say we should not deliberately create trouble for the
Republic at this time to add to the worries of the Great President
so that he might devote his puissant thoughts and energies to the
institution of great reforms. Then our final hope will be satisfied
some day. But what a year and what a day we are now living in? The
great crisis (_Note: The reference is to the Japanese demands_) has
just passed and we have not yet had time for a respite. By the
pressure of a powerful neighbour we have been compelled to sign a
"certain" Treaty. Floods, drought, epidemics and locusts visit our
country and the land is full of suffering while robbers plunder the
people. In ancient times this would have been a day for the Imperial
Court to remove their ornaments and live in humiliation. What do the
people of our day mean by advising and urging the President to
ascend the throne? To pluck the fruit before it is ripe, injures the
roots of the tree; and to force the premature birth of a child kills
the mother. If the last "ray of hope" for China should be
extinguished by the failure of a premature attempt to force matters,
how could the advocates of such a premature attempt excuse
themselves before the whole country? Let the members of the Chou An
Hui meditate on this point.
The Odes say, "The people are tired. Let them have a respite." In
less than four years' time from the 8th moon of the year Hsin Hai we
have had many changes. Like a bolt from the blue we had the Manchu
Constitution, then "the Republic of Five Races," then the
Provisional President, then the formal Presidency, then the
Provisional Constitution was promulgated, then it was suddenly
amended, suddenly the National Assembly was convoked, suddenly it
was dissolved, suddenly we had a Cabinet System, suddenly it was
changed to a Presidential System, suddenly it was a short-term
Presidency, suddenly it was a life-term Presidency, suddenly the
Provisional Constitution was temporarily placed in a legal position
as a Permanent Constitution, suddenly the drafting of the Permanent
Constitution was pressed. Generally speaking the average life of
each new system has been less than six months, after which a new
system quite contrary to the last succeeded it. Thus the whole
country has been at a loss to know where it stood and how to act;
and thus the dignity and credit of the Government in the eyes of the
people have been lowered down to the dust. There are many subjects
respecting internal and diplomatic affairs which we can profitably
discuss. If you wish to serve the country in a patriotic way you
have many ways to do so. Why stir the peaceful water and create a
sea of troubles by your vain attempt to excite the people and sow
seeds of discord for the State?
X. THE ASSEVERATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT
One or two points more, and I am finished. These will be in the
nature of a straight talk to the Chou An Hui. The question I would
ask in plain words is, who is the person you have in your mind as
the future Emperor? Do you wish to select a person other than the
Great President? You know only too well that the moment the
President relieves his shoulder of the burdens of State the country
will be thrown into confusion. If you entertain this plot with the
deliberation of a person bent upon the destruction of the country,
then the four hundred million of people will not excuse you.
Is the man you have in mind the present President? Heaven and earth
as well as all living creatures in China and other lands know what
the President swore to when he took the oath of office as President.
Rumours have indeed been circulated, but whenever they reached the
ears of the President he has never hesitated to express his
righteous mind, saying that no amount of pressure could compel him
to change his determination. All officials who have come into close
contact with the President have heard such sentiments from the lips
of the President on not a few occasions. To me his words are still
ringing in my ears. General Feng Kuo-chang has conveyed to me what
he was told by the President. He says that the President has
prepared a "few rooms" in England, and that if the people would not
spare him he would flee to the refuge he has prepared. Thus we may
clearly see how determined the President is. Can it be possible that
you have never heard of this and thus raise this extraordinary
subject without any cause? If the situation should become such that
the President should be compelled to carry out his threat and desert
the Palace, what would you say and do then?
Or, perhaps, you are measuring the lordly conduct of a gentleman
with the heart of a mean man, saying to yourself that what the
President has been saying cannot be the truth, but, as Confucius has
said, "say you are not but make a point to do it," and that, knowing
that he would not condemn you, you have taken the risk. If so, then
what do you take the President for? To go back on one's words is an
act despised by a vagabond. To suggest such an act as being capable
of the President is an insult, the hideousness of which cannot be
equalled by the number of hairs on one's head. Any one guilty of
such an insult should not be spared by the four hundred million of
people.
XI. THE CHOU AN HUI AND THE LAW
Next let me ask if you have read the Provisional Constitution, the
Provisional Code, the Meeting and Association Law, the Press
Regulations, the various mandates bearing on the punishment of
persons who dare conspire against the existing form of state? Do you
not know that you, as citizens of the Republic, must in duty bound
observe the Constitution and obey the laws and mandates? Yet you
have dared openly to call together your partisans and incite a
revolution (the recognized definition in political science for
revolution is "to change the existing form of state"). As the
Judiciary have not been courageous enough to deal with you since you
are all so closely in touch with the President, you have become
bolder still and carry out your sinister scheme in broad daylight. I
do not wish to say what sort of peace you are planning for China;
but this much I know, that the law has been violated by you to the
last letter. I will be silent if you believe that a nation can be
governed without law. Otherwise tell me what you have got to say?
It is quite apparent that you will not be satisfied with mere
shouting and what you aim at is the actual fulfilment of your
expectations. That is, you wish that once the expected monarchy is
established it may continue for ever. Now by what principle can such
a monarchy continue for ever, except that the laws and orders of
that dynasty be obeyed, and obeyed implicitly by all, from the Court
down to the common people? For one to adopt methods that violate the
law while engaged in creating a new dynasty is like a man, who, to
secure a wife, induces the virtuous virgin to commit fornication
with him, on the plea that as a marriage will be arranged
preservation of her virtue need not be insisted upon. Can such a man
blame his wife for immorality after marriage? If, while still
citizens of a republican country, one may openly and boldly call
meetings and organize societies for the overthrow of the Republic,
who shall say that we may not in due time openly and boldly call
meetings and organize societies for the overthrow of the monarchy?
What shall you say if in future there should be another foreign
doctor to suggest another theory and another society to engage in
another form of activity? The Odes have it, "To prevent the monkey
from climbing a tree is like putting mud on a man in the mire." For
a person to adopt such methods while engaged in the making of a
dynasty is the height of folly. Mencius says, "a Chuntse when
creating a dynasty aims at things that can be handed down as good
examples." Is it not the greatest misfortune to set up an example
that cannot be handed down as a precedent? The present state of
affairs is causing me no small amount of anxiety.
XII. A POSTSCRIPT
A copy of Yang Tu's pamphlet, "Constitutional Monarchy or the
Salvation of China" reached me after I had finished writing the
above discussion. On a casual glance through it I alighted upon the
following passage: "What is known as a constitutional country is a
country which has definite laws and in which no one, from the ruler
down to the common people, can take any action that is not permitted
by law. Good men cannot do good outside of the bounds of law;
neither can bad men do evil in violation of it." This is indeed a
passage that breathes the very spirit of constitutionalism. Let us
ask Mr. Yang if the activities of the Chou An Hui, of which he is
the President, are acts within the bounds of law? Mr. Yang is a good
man. It is therefore possible for him to believe that he is not
doing evil in violation of the law; but has he not at least been
doing good outside of the bounds of law? If an advocate of
constitutional monarchy is capable of doing such unlawful acts, we
may easily imagine what sort of a constitutional monarchy he
advocates; and we may also easily imagine what the fate of his
constitutional monarchy will be.
Mencius says, "Am I argumentative? I cannot help it." Who would have
thought that a man, who cares not for the question of the form of
state like myself and who opposed you--Mr. Yang Tu--during your
first campaign for the change in the form of State--you were a
Republican then--would be opposing you again now that you are
engaged in advocating another change in the form of state? A change
in the form of government is a manifestation of progress while a
change in the status of the State is a sign of revolution. The path
of progress leads to further progress, but the path of revolution
leads to more revolution. This is a fact proved by theory as well as
actual experience. Therefore a man who has any love for his country,
is afraid to mention revolution; and as for myself I am always
opposed to revolution. I am now opposing your theory of monarchical
revolution, just as I once opposed your theory of republican
revolution, in the same spirit, and I am doing the same duty. My
belief is that since the country is now in a most weakened state, we
may yet fail even if we do all we can at all times to nurse its
wound and gather up its scattered strength. How can any one devote
his time and energy to the discussion of a question of no importance
such as the form of state, and so obstruct the progress of the
administration? But this is not all. The whole country is now
stirred up to an excited state and is wondering how long this
ever-changing situation is going to stop. The loss caused by this
state of affairs, though unnoticed, is incalculable. In the Odes,
it is written "Alas! my brethren. Befriended of the countrymen. No
one wants rebellion. What has no parents?" Let the critics remember
this--let them remember.
Some will say to me that a revolution is an unavoidable thing. Of
all things only the facts cannot be undone. Why then should I bother
myself especially as my last effort fell on deaf ears. This I
realize; but it is not my nature to abandon what is my conviction.
Therefore, although aware of the futility of my words, I cannot
refrain from uttering them all the same. Chu Yuan drowned himself in
the Pilo and Chia Sheng died from his horse. Ask them why they did
these things, they will say they did not know. Once I wrote a piece
of poetry containing the following lines:
"Ten years after you will think of me,
The country is excited. To whom shall I speak?"
I have spoken much in my life, and all my words have become subjects
for meditation ten years after they were uttered. Never, however,
have any of my words attracted the attention of my own countrymen
before a decade has spent itself. Is it a misfortune for my words or
a misfortune to the Country? My hope is that there will be no
occasion for the country to think of my present words ten years
hence.